Bachna v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors.

remanded on two points, firstly, the lower authority was required to verify if possession of Bachna on the aforesaid two khasra numbers was established from Rabi 1972; and secondly, whether he fulfilled all other conditions for transfer on the basis of possession. As far as the remaining area given to Gurdip Singh in the auction was concerned, the same was held to remain intact and if the possession of Bachna was not found from the required date and he was not found eligible for transfer of the land, then the entire sale in favour of Gurdip Singh was held to be valid. It is pertinent to mention here that the said order was neither challenged by Bachna nor by the Rehabilitation Department in further revision and the same became final between the parties. Therefore, the LPA No. 664 of 2012 (O&M) -4- lower authority was only required to comply with the remand order which was only with regard to transfer of 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land comprising of khasra Nos.27//19/2 and 22 on the basis of possession of Bachna. After the remand, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Sales Commissioner vide order dated 29.1.1979 (Annexure P-2) found that Bachna was in possession of the aforesaid two khasra numbers, therefore, he was entitled for transfer of those two khasra numbers. As far as the remaining land measuring 16 Kanals was concerned, Bachna was not found in possession of the same and his claim with regard to the said land was rejected and it was held that the sale by auction with regard to the said land in favour of Gurdip Singh became final and not to be questioned. It was further held that the proportionate price of the remaining two khasra Nos.27/20 and 23 be deposited by Gurdip Singh. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, both Bachna and Gurdip Singh filed two separate revision petitions before the Chief Sales Commissioner, who vide order dated 24.4.1979 (Annexure P-3) disposed of the same and confirmed the finding of the Sales Commissioner with regard to entitlement of Bachna to get transfer of 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land comprising in Khasra Nos. 27//19/2 and 22. It was further held that he was not entitled for possession of two khasra Nos.27/20 and 23 measuring 16 Kanals of land. As far as sale of said land in favour of Gurdip Singh was concerned, the order of confirmation of sale of land in his favour was set aside. It was further held that after satisfying the requisite claim of the occupant, the remaining area be disposed of according to rules. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, Gurdip Singh filed a LPA No. 664 of 2012 (O&M) -5- petition before the Commissioner under Section 15 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976. The Commissioner vide order dated

7.12.1983 (Annexure P-4) dismissed the said petition, while observing as under:- “....The Chief Sales Commissioner vide his order dated

24.4.1979 directed that in the circumstances the entire sale may be set aside and after satisfying the claim of the respondent Bachna, the remaining area be disposed of according to rules after observing all formalities. I note that the then Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab while remanding the case to Tehsildar Sales for a fresh decision had observed in the last line of his order dated 21.2.1977 that if Bachna respondent is entitled to the transfer the land to which he is entitled may be transferred to him and the area may be given to the auction purchaser i.e. Gurdip Singh petitioner. The Chief Sales Commissioner vide his impugned order dated 24.4.1979 impugned in the instant revision, for reason as discussed above thought it better and expedient to cancel the entire sale in favour of the petitioner and directed that the residual land after satisfying the requirements of respondent be disposed of according to rules. On a careful consideration I am inclined to agree with this view of the Chief Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. For when a large chunk of the land put on auction is to be excluded the entire auction would lack basis and legitimacy and the perspective would so materially change that it would not be appropriate to uphold the auction in respect of the residual land with rebate on the pro rata basis. In exercise of powers of the State Government under Section 18. I direct that the earlier order of the then Chief Sales Commissioner dated 21.2.1977 be modified to the extent that the last line therein shall stand deleted. With these observations the revision LPA No. 664 of 2012 (O&M) -6- petition in the light of the above discussion, is hereby rejected.” The review application filed against the said order was also dismissed on 27.3.1985 (Annexure P-5). Against those orders, Gurdip Singh filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The said revision petition was also dismissed on 2.5.1991 (Annexure P-7). Feeling aggrieved against those orders, i.e., Chief Sales Commissioner, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, Gurdip Singh filed the aforesaid writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the matter was remanded to the Chief Sales Commissioner to decide the case afresh. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere in the said order. Primarily, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the order dated 21.2.1977 passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner remanding the matter to Tehsildar (Sales) with specific directions to verify the claim of Bachna with regard to transfer of 11 Kanals 4 Marlas of land became final, as the same was accepted by the appellant. In that order, it was specifically mentioned that the remaining area be given to auction purchaser Gurdip Singh, otherwise the sale of the entire land in favour of Gurdip Singh shall stand. So, the Chief Sales Commissioner after the remand was to decide on that issue only and the said order could not have been reopened on the basis of the last line of the remand order, so far as confirmation of sale of land in favour of Gurdip Singh, is concerned, could not have been set aside by the LPA No. 664 of 2012 (O&M) -7- Chief Sales Commissioner. It is pertinent to mention that after the remand, the Sales Commissioner had clearly held that Bachna was in possession of only two khasra numbers, i.e., 27//19/2 and 22 and he never remained in possession of Khasra Nos.27/20 and 23. Therefore, it was rightly ordered that two khasra numbers be transferred to Bachna on the basis of possession and the remaining land be transferred to Gurdip Singh being auction purchaser after charging pro rata consideration. The finding in this regard was confirmed by the Chief Commissioner, Sales, wrongly by holding that the sale in toto should have been set aside, and when before the Commissioner the argument with regard to upholding the auction in respect of the residual land with rebate on the pro rata basis was made, the Commissioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner had ordered that the last line of the order dated

21.2.1977 earlier passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner shall stand deleted. In our opinion, the Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to pass that order. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order of the Chief Sales Commissioner, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner and remanded the matter to give justice to Gurdip Singh, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, a weaker section of the society, who had participated in the restricted auction held in the year 1976 and stood as a highest bidder. On the other hand, the claim of Bachna was based upon illegal possession without there being any right. Even it was found that as far as two khasra numbers, i.e., 27/20 and 23 were concerned, Bachna never remained in possession and the Sales Commissioner while giving justice to the parties, in compliance with the earlier order of the LPA No. 664 of 2012 (O&M) -8- Chief Sales Commissioner, has held that at least the auction sale qua the said land, which was not in possession of Bachna, should be confirmed. It is pertinent to mention that when there was no stay qua the land purchased by Gurdip Singh in the restricted auction and Bachna was very much aware of the auction, then subsequently the sale qua the land comprising of Khasra numbers 27//20 and 23 in favour of Gurdip Singh, which was put to restricted auction along with Khasra Nos.27//19/2 and 22, could not have been set aside by the Chief Commissioner, Sales, particularly when he had given the highest bid and his bid was accepted and he deposited the requisite money. It is pertinent to mention here that Gurdip Singh had purchased the land measuring 27 Kanals 04 Marlas way back in the year 1976 in restricted auction meant only for Scheduled Castes, whereas Bachna had claimed the land comprising of Khasra numbers 27//20 and 23 on payment of the reserve price. Thus, in our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not only legal but also just and fair, which requires no interference. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 09, 2012 ( T. P. S. MANN ) JUDGE